Anemospilia-human sacrifice interrupted?

Great thread! S & F.
It's great to have people of the field here, it's always been a topic of interest to me.
I envy those who can access this excavations and actually BE there, where that happened, be able to touch those walls, man...

Originally posted by drakus
Great thread! S & F.
It's great to have people of the field here, it's always been a topic of interest to me.
I envy those who can access this excavations and actually BE there, where that happened, be able to touch those walls, man...

Howdy

Look at the top of the stickies, info on how to join an expedition as a volunteer

Yes that was a memorable site (content of what was found not the physical site which was rather typical) I wrote two pages of notes but also added half a page on the lunch I had in Heraklion (Kolokithokeftedes) and and another half page on the two Danish grad students (female) I had the lunch with. After six month or so in Saudi Arabia I was VERY glad to talk to any person who didn't have a beard and a sour, pompous attitude.

Originally posted by Mad Simian
How's about he wasn't being castrated or sacrificed but had gone to the temple for bloodletting? Unfortunately for the poor young man, he just happened to pick a bad day to go to 'the doctor' to have the 'procedure' done and ended up bleeding to death when his caretakers were killed in the earthquake.

After all, bloodletting has historical precedence for the general area and time in question moreso than castration and/or sacrifice does.

edit on 1/7/2012 by Mad Simian because: (no reason given)

Again, I agree, which is why I still want some clarification of this claimed 'forensic fact' that the presence of blood affects the way bones burn....nothing forthcoming so far from the OP...

Therefore, I stand by my conclusion that for such and effect to have occured, the body must have been dead for some time, at least twenty minutes, for that effect to have occurred...

Hanslune...since you have been at the site...can you point me in the direction of the pathology report or who did the report...I find it bizarre that anyone with any medical knowledge would come to a conclusion that the body was 'half-drained' of blood...not this century anyway...I would be interested to know where the 'expertise' for such a conclusion came from, there seems to be an alarming trend for sensationalism in an attempt to draw funding, I can't help but feel that this is the case here...

More information on Anemospilia

PDF on the site with a good reconstruction image at the end

For Omphale's interesting question:

We now believed we knew the true story of Anemospilia. But confirming it would require expert help. We
turned to our friends at the University of Athens. Dr. Alexandros Contopoulos, professor of anthropology
and director of the Athens Medical School Anthropological Museum, joined us in Crete with his assistant,
Dr. Theodoros Pitsios. So did Dr. Antonios Koutselinis, assistant professor of criminology at Athens
University and a master of the coroner's art.

"There is evidence that when a body with its blood supply intact is burned, the bones turn black,"
explained Dr. Contopoulos. "But if the blood has been drained before the fire, the bones will remain white.
"When we looked closely at this skeleton, we saw that the bones of the left side, which was uppermost,
were white, while those on the right side were black. Thus, I believe that half this man's blood had been
drained before the fire. The loss was more than enough to kill him. The heart stopped pumping, leaving
blood still in the body's lowerside."

Another source:

Anemospilia

Now bone turns colour based on the heat of the burn:


Colour of burned bones

...So on what scientific basis does the good Greek doctor make the statement about the bone colour and blood? Omphale do you expertise in this medical area? Is this a medical urban legend?

I hadn't heard of anemospilia before and I haven't read the links Hanslune has provided but my educated guess is that the layman explanation for why bones get 'scorched' when blood is present has something to do with blood being a source of oxygen or some other element/substance that aids in the burn process(although I'd say oxygen is the most likely suspect).

Could someone tell me how close I was before I go and read the medical links?

Originally posted by Mad Simian
I hadn't heard of anemospilia before and I haven't read the links Hanslune has provided but my educated guess is that the layman explanation for why bones get 'scorched' when blood is present has something to do with blood being a source of oxygen or some other element/substance that aids in the burn process(although I'd say oxygen is the most likely suspect).

Could someone tell me how close I was before I go and read the medical links?

Getting lazy in your dotage? Seems to be heat is the dominant factor. I'm hoping Omphale will return with information on this being a medical myth.

No duh, sherlock. lol The more oxygen a fire has access to, the hotter it's going to get and/or the longer it's going to burn.

Originally posted by Hanslune
More information on Anemospilia

PDF on the site with a good reconstruction image at the end

Though a very nice piece of writing, it is pure fiction, based on some very circumstantial evidence. But it is nice that they are so enthusiastic, even if it has clouded their rationale.

Originally posted by Hanslune

We now believed we knew the true story of Anemospilia. But confirming it would require expert help. We
turned to our friends at the University of Athens. Dr. Alexandros Contopoulos, professor of anthropology
and director of the Athens Medical School Anthropological Museum, joined us in Crete with his assistant,
Dr. Theodoros Pitsios. So did Dr. Antonios Koutselinis, assistant professor of criminology at Athens
University and a master of the coroner's art.

"There is evidence that when a body with its blood supply intact is burned, the bones turn black,"
explained Dr. Contopoulos. "But if the blood has been drained before the fire, the bones will remain white.
"When we looked closely at this skeleton, we saw that the bones of the left side, which was uppermost,
were white, while those on the right side were black. Thus, I believe that half this man's blood had been
drained before the fire. The loss was more than enough to kill him. The heart stopped pumping, leaving
blood still in the body's lowerside."

Another source:

Anemospilia

Now bone turns colour based on the heat of the burn:


Colour of burned bones

...So on what scientific basis does the good Greek doctor make the statement about the bone colour and blood? Omphale do you expertise in this medical area? Is this a medical urban legend?

Although the doctors credentials seem fine, and his association with the Museum of Criminology in Greece confirms his good standing...looking at the photograph of the bones in situ, I wonder what actual material examination he based that conclusion on, and whether, hypothetical, he could support such a conclusion in court. If the blood supply has to be intact for this process to occur, then the blood would not simply be 'in one half of the body' because that takes at least twenty minutes after the blood supply has ceased to circulate to occur. So, either the blood supply was intact, and therefore this evidence should only be apparent in the extremities...OR, it also occurs in bodies which are in a state of livor mortis, and therefore the body was dead for at least 20 minutes prior to being burned.

Tell that to your good Greek Doctor and see what he says...

Originally posted by Omphale

Although the doctors credentials seem fine, and his association with the Museum of Criminology in Greece confirms his good standing...looking at the photograph of the bones in situ, I wonder what actual material examination he based that conclusion on, and whether, hypothetical, he could support such a conclusion in court. If the blood supply has to be intact for this process to occur, then the blood would not simply be 'in one half of the body' because that takes at least twenty minutes after the blood supply has ceased to circulate to occur. So, either the blood supply was intact, and therefore this evidence should only be apparent in the extremities...OR, it also occurs in bodies which are in a state of livor mortis, and therefore the body was dead for at least 20 minutes prior to being burned.

Tell that to your good Greek Doctor and see what he says...

That might be difficult as the excavation report was written in 1979 and published in 1981 in National Geographic. He is probably dead or very retired.

However in the larger venue do you have forensic evidence that blood in the body (or not) does or doesn't cause the bones to turn a different colour? The sources I found seem to point to heat being the determining factor. I was wondering if the bone colour concept was one popular 30+ years ago but has now been disproved or ... what?

reply to post by Hanslune


Hanslune (and Byrd maybe?)

I am currently re-reading Steven Mithen's 'After the Ice' and I came across a really interesting description of a communal building at the Jerf el Ahman, WF16 excavation that instantly reminded me of this thread. It has taken me a while to find the thread though, couldn't remember who I was when I posted or the exact name of the site...anyway...

The following pdf has, at the bottom I think, a drawing of the layout, which although the structures are rotund, is incredibly similar, to my eye, with the layout of the structure at Anemosphlia...

antiquity.ac.uk...

This is how it is described in 'After the Ice'...

'..located in the centre of the village and appears to have been used for the communal storage of cereal grain from wild, but cultivated crops. It was divided into six small rooms and around a central area with two benches...the final use of this building seems to have been for a ritual act: below the debris from the collapsed roof an almost complete skeleton was found splayed out upon the floor. Only the skull was missing - the body had been decapitated.' (p64)

From descriptions, the people who occupied WF16, were still moved towards veneration of animals, as well as preserving the heads of ancestors, and therefore, no Xoanon...but otherwise, it seems the two sites are remarkably alike in purpose. So, perhaps the answer to the body on the slab at Anemosphilia is not ritual sacrifice, or for that matter, castration as I put forth (as Omphale), but post-mortem rites/preparations? Less sensational of course...but still...

And, what about the continuity of practice, function and ritual that seems to be the case with these two sites? Can you shed a little light?

Many thanks...

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


Howdy

Just saw this but I'm traveling so cannot reply in detail, back next week - interesting similarity!

reply to post by Hanslune


I very much look forward to your thoughts.

Enjoy your travels.

Thanks.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


Howdy Kilgore

Thanks again for linking to it. That information is wothy of a thread itself. I have not read 'After the Ice' but the PDF was interesting in itself.

I would say that finding a similar situation as in this thread would be unusual but not unexpected as such sacrifices may have been common in the PPNA world.

Your interpretation might be correct also - always hard to determine reasons and the motivations of ancient people when they had no system of writing.

reply to post by Hanslune


Ah...I don't know, I am not sure if writing always provides clarity, it can be misleading at times, intentionally or otherwise. I think that the lay-out of the buildings is startlingly similar, but given the geography, I can't see there being any direct relationship, unless it is feasible to interpret the Anemospilia site as belonging to some kind of trade embassy or the such like??? Not sure, one the think about though.

Thanks again.

PS...not sure you would like the book, on second reading I am finding some aspects of it a little annoying...the time traveller aspect over does the interpretation at times...but very well sourced and highly accessible because of the going 'into the scene' thing, worked for me first time round, so my opinion is perhaps a little jaded

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


Its looks to be interesting and I put it on my to read list, just 131 books ahead of it. Reading Romer's A history of Ancient Egypt: From the first farmers to the great pyramids.

Originally posted by Hanslune
Its looks to be interesting and I put it on my to read list, just 131 books ahead of it. Reading Romer's A history of Ancient Egypt: From the first farmers to the great pyramids.

Oh...I am getting that one too...sounds right up my street, thanks for the recommendation. No list here though, after Steven Mithen, I have David W Anthony's The Horse, The Wheel and Language to read, and now, following on from that, Romer. Lovely